"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

[bodecea]

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees:

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

When watching the videos of yesterday's protest and counter protest, a large number of the people at the protest were armed - many had helmets and shields as well as various weapons ranging from clubs to pepper spray to guns.

It's apparent that these people were at best anticipating violence, and may have intended to incite violence.
The Constitution does NOT have a right to violent protest. It does note cite a right to gather as an armed mob.

The violence at yesterdays protest would probably have been a whole lot less if no one on either side had weapons of any type, and if they did not any protective gear.

Even wearing protective gear shows that they are anticipating violence. Anyone who foes to a protest while anticipating violence has no right to go to that protest.

It seems that protest groups go far beyond their Constitutional right - if they intend to incite violence or even anticipate violence, they are no longer within their Constitutional rights.

In the future, if anyone shows up at a protest or counter protest with weapons or protective gear, they should immediately be arrested. If a sizable number have weapons or protective gear, the police should use whatever means necessary to end the protest!

Now point out how many people were shot yesterday. Mkay?

Apparently wherever there were weapons on display the Antifa assholes decided not to attack anyone.

Regardless of what weapon was used, a person was murdered yesterday. If no one had any weapons or protective gear, there would have been less violence and passions would not have risen to the level that hey did. Most likely no one would have been killed.

No....it all goes to the first one to use physical violence....and that is on antifa fascists....the guy who ran people over is also to blame, and should get the death penalty, if it can be shown he did this with the intent to murder people.

"and that is on anti-fa fascists" (anti-fascist fascists......lol) Where is your evidence that they started the physical violence?

 

[bodecea]

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees:

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

When watching the videos of yesterday's protest and counter protest, a large number of the people at the protest were armed - many had helmets and shields as well as various weapons ranging from clubs to pepper spray to guns.

It's apparent that these people were at best anticipating violence, and may have intended to incite violence.
The Constitution does NOT have a right to violent protest. It does note cite a right to gather as an armed mob.

The violence at yesterdays protest would probably have been a whole lot less if no one on either side had weapons of any type, and if they did not any protective gear.

Even wearing protective gear shows that they are anticipating violence. Anyone who foes to a protest while anticipating violence has no right to go to that protest.

It seems that protest groups go far beyond their Constitutional right - if they intend to incite violence or even anticipate violence, they are no longer within their Constitutional rights.

In the future, if anyone shows up at a protest or counter protest with weapons or protective gear, they should immediately be arrested. If a sizable number have weapons or protective gear, the police should use whatever means necessary to end the protest!

They were anticipating violence because they've been watching the news these past years and they know that liberal groups love violence and destruction. The militant left has made it their goal to stop all those who disagree with them from getting together in protest or even speaking in public. Would you rather they got the shit beat out of them while not wearing protective gear?

MLK jr and Gandhi weren't cowards.

 

[Godboy]

Define terrorism. Lets see if it applies to this situation.

An act of violence against civilians in order to support a political agenda.

Is that the reason he hit those people? To further a political agenda?...or did he get hit in the head with a stick, thereby becoming enraged and making a spur of the moment decision to drive his car into the crowd?

It seems to me that we dont yet have the information required to make such a determination. Wouldnt you agree?

If you can demonstrate self defense in this case, take the bar exam in your state and get rich.

Who said anything about self defense? Where is your proof that he hit those people to further a political agenda? How do you know he wasnt just pissed off and drunk and made a terrible decision in the heat of the moment?

excuse-making

You are ******* dumb. You dont know a thing about what happened, yet youre here proclaiming that its an act of terrorism. Are you like 12 or something? What happened to your ability to use logic and critical thinking? This is common sense stuff. WTF?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Deliberately driving into a crowd is not a defense of rights. It's simply assault with a deadly weapon.

Bullshit! Tell that to Reginald Denny

On April 29, 1992, at 5:39 pm, Denny loaded his red dump truck with 27 tons of sand and began driving to a plant in Inglewood, where the sand was due. He left the Santa Monica Freeway and took a familiar shortcut across Florence Avenue to get to his destination. His truck had no radio, so he did not realize that he was driving into a riot. At 6:46 pm, after entering the intersection at Normandie, rioters threw rocks at his windows, and he heard people shouting for him to stop, forcing him to do so in the middle of the street. Antoine Miller climbed up and opened the truck door, giving an unidentified man the chance to pull Denny out and throw him on the ground. Henry Watson stood on Denny's neck to hold him down as a group of men surrounded him and one man kicked him in the abdomen. Miller searched Denny's back pockets before climbing into the truck and running off with a stolen bag. As Watson walked away, two other unidentified men joined in the attack: one hurled a five-pound oxygenator stolen from Larry Tarvin's truck at Denny's head, and the other kicked him and hit him with a claw hammer. As Denny tried to stand up, Damian Williams threw a piece of brick at the side of his head, which knocked him unconscious.[1]Williams pointed and laughed at Denny, did a victory dance in the road, and flashed gang signs at news helicopters, including that of Robert Tur and his wife, Marika Gerrard, who were televising the events live from above in a helicopter. Anthony Brown joined Williams in flashing gang signs and spat on Denny. One man was seen standing nearby, filming Denny as he lay bleeding on the ground but did not try to help him.[2]

Denny remained on the ground next to his truck, bloodied and unconscious as some residents threw bottles at him. Gary Williams approached Denny and rifled through his pockets before fleeing. As Denny slowly came to and got up to his knees, the man who had earlier assaulted him with a hammer ran up and gave him a flying kick to the face. On the other side of the truck, Lance Parker stopped on his motorcycle and attempted to shoot the fuel tank with a shotgun but missed before driving off. Bobby Green Jr., Lei Yuille, and Titus Murphy and Terri Barnett (boyfriend and girlfriend), who had been watching the events on television, came to Denny's aid

 

[Dragonlady]

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees:

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

When watching the videos of yesterday's protest and counter protest, a large number of the people at the protest were armed - many had helmets and shields as well as various weapons ranging from clubs to pepper spray to guns.

It's apparent that these people were at best anticipating violence, and may have intended to incite violence.
The Constitution does NOT have a right to violent protest. It does note cite a right to gather as an armed mob.

The violence at yesterdays protest would probably have been a whole lot less if no one on either side had weapons of any type, and if they did not any protective gear.

Even wearing protective gear shows that they are anticipating violence. Anyone who foes to a protest while anticipating violence has no right to go to that protest.

It seems that protest groups go far beyond their Constitutional right - if they intend to incite violence or even anticipate violence, they are no longer within their Constitutional rights.

In the future, if anyone shows up at a protest or counter protest with weapons or protective gear, they should immediately be arrested. If a sizable number have weapons or protective gear, the police should use whatever means necessary to end the protest!

Now point out how many people were shot yesterday. Mkay?

Apparently wherever there were weapons on display the Antifa assholes decided not to attack anyone.

If no one, White supremacists or anti-fascists had weapons or protective gear, the worse that would happen would be fist fights.

Are you saying that white supremacists are such a bunch of pussies that can't handle a fist fight with a bunch of liberals?

No one has a constitutional right to gather as an armed mob - regardless of which side they're on.

Wasn't the driver of the car triggered by someone throwing a rock?

I don't know, but a report on an a British site, possibly "The Mirror" said so. I linked it in a post yesterday. Never heard anything else about it. But from the video, even if he was hit by a rock, he sure went a long way to ram those people.

The driver of the car was triggered because the he hates liberals. Hates them so much he wanted to kill them. It's called "terrorism".

 

[Godboy]

Deliberately driving into a crowd is not a defense of rights. It's simply assault with a deadly weapon.

Bullshit! Tell that to Reginald Denny

On April 29, 1992, at 5:39 pm, Denny loaded his red dump truck with 27 tons of sand and began driving to a plant in Inglewood, where the sand was due. He left the Santa Monica Freeway and took a familiar shortcut across Florence Avenue to get to his destination. His truck had no radio, so he did not realize that he was driving into a riot. At 6:46 pm, after entering the intersection at Normandie, rioters threw rocks at his windows, and he heard people shouting for him to stop, forcing him to do so in the middle of the street. Antoine Miller climbed up and opened the truck door, giving an unidentified man the chance to pull Denny out and throw him on the ground. Henry Watson stood on Denny's neck to hold him down as a group of men surrounded him and one man kicked him in the abdomen. Miller searched Denny's back pockets before climbing into the truck and running off with a stolen bag. As Watson walked away, two other unidentified men joined in the attack: one hurled a five-pound oxygenator stolen from Larry Tarvin's truck at Denny's head, and the other kicked him and hit him with a claw hammer. As Denny tried to stand up, Damian Williams threw a piece of brick at the side of his head, which knocked him unconscious.[1]Williams pointed and laughed at Denny, did a victory dance in the road, and flashed gang signs at news helicopters, including that of Robert Tur and his wife, Marika Gerrard, who were televising the events live from above in a helicopter. Anthony Brown joined Williams in flashing gang signs and spat on Denny. One man was seen standing nearby, filming Denny as he lay bleeding on the ground but did not try to help him.[2]

Denny remained on the ground next to his truck, bloodied and unconscious as some residents threw bottles at him. Gary Williams approached Denny and rifled through his pockets before fleeing. As Denny slowly came to and got up to his knees, the man who had earlier assaulted him with a hammer ran up and gave him a flying kick to the face. On the other side of the truck, Lance Parker stopped on his motorcycle and attempted to shoot the fuel tank with a shotgun but missed before driving off. Bobby Green Jr., Lei Yuille, and Titus Murphy and Terri Barnett (boyfriend and girlfriend), who had been watching the events on television, came to Denny's aid

Yeah, and if you cant drive over a crowd in self defense, why did these bikers go to jail, while the driver of the car got off Scott free?

 

[Auld Phart]

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees:

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

When watching the videos of yesterday's protest and counter protest, a large number of the people at the protest were armed - many had helmets and shields as well as various weapons ranging from clubs to pepper spray to guns.

It's apparent that these people were at best anticipating violence, and may have intended to incite violence.
The Constitution does NOT have a right to violent protest. It does note cite a right to gather as an armed mob.

The violence at yesterdays protest would probably have been a whole lot less if no one on either side had weapons of any type, and if they did not any protective gear.

Even wearing protective gear shows that they are anticipating violence. Anyone who foes to a protest while anticipating violence has no right to go to that protest.

It seems that protest groups go far beyond their Constitutional right - if they intend to incite violence or even anticipate violence, they are no longer within their Constitutional rights.

In the future, if anyone shows up at a protest or counter protest with weapons or protective gear, they should immediately be arrested. If a sizable number have weapons or protective gear, the police should use whatever means necessary to end the protest!

Now point out how many people were shot yesterday. Mkay?

Apparently wherever there were weapons on display the Antifa assholes decided not to attack anyone.

If no one, White supremacists or anti-fascists had weapons or protective gear, the worse that would happen would be fist fights.

Are you saying that white supremacists are such a bunch of pussies that can't handle a fist fight with a bunch of liberals?

No one has a constitutional right to gather as an armed mob - regardless of which side they're on.

Wasn't the driver of the car triggered by someone throwing a rock?

I don't know, but a report on an a British site, possibly "The Mirror" said so. I linked it in a post yesterday. Never heard anything else about it. But from the video, even if he was hit by a rock, he sure went a long way to ram those people.

The driver of the car was triggered because the he hates liberals. Hates them so much he wanted to kill them. It's called "terrorism".

Thank you Doctor Brothers.

and, do you have anything but your opinion to back this up?

 

[Peach]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

Killing someone with a car automatically means its an act of terror? People die in car accidents every day. Does that mean we have rampant terrorism in the US?

It is alleged, after branding a Nazi shield, he, drove into a group of people; if proven, it was not an accident.

 

[Godboy]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

Killing someone with a car automatically means its an act of terror? People die in car accidents every day. Does that mean we have rampant terrorism in the US?

It is alleged, after branding a Nazi shield, he, drove into a group of people; if proven, it was not an accident.

I doubt very much it was an accident. That still doesnt tell us if it was terrorism or the act of a pissed of nut case.

 

[Peach]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

Killing someone with a car automatically means its an act of terror? People die in car accidents every day. Does that mean we have rampant terrorism in the US?

It is alleged, after branding a Nazi shield, he, drove into a group of people; if proven, it was not an accident.

That still doesnt tell us if it was terrorism or the act of a pissed of nut case.

True. Splitting hairs does not help those in critical condition, and the deceased however. A vehicle is a dangerous instrumentality.

 

[Auld Phart]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

Killing someone with a car automatically means its an act of terror? People die in car accidents every day. Does that mean we have rampant terrorism in the US?

It is alleged, after branding a Nazi shield, he, drove into a group of people; if proven, it was not an accident.

if proven, it was not an accident.

" if proven"

Until then, innocent until proven guilty.

 

[mudwhistle]

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees:

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

When watching the videos of yesterday's protest and counter protest, a large number of the people at the protest were armed - many had helmets and shields as well as various weapons ranging from clubs to pepper spray to guns.

It's apparent that these people were at best anticipating violence, and may have intended to incite violence.
The Constitution does NOT have a right to violent protest. It does note cite a right to gather as an armed mob.

The violence at yesterdays protest would probably have been a whole lot less if no one on either side had weapons of any type, and if they did not any protective gear.

Even wearing protective gear shows that they are anticipating violence. Anyone who foes to a protest while anticipating violence has no right to go to that protest.

It seems that protest groups go far beyond their Constitutional right - if they intend to incite violence or even anticipate violence, they are no longer within their Constitutional rights.

In the future, if anyone shows up at a protest or counter protest with weapons or protective gear, they should immediately be arrested. If a sizable number have weapons or protective gear, the police should use whatever means necessary to end the protest!

Now point out how many people were shot yesterday. Mkay?

Apparently wherever there were weapons on display the Antifa assholes decided not to attack anyone.

Regardless of what weapon was used, a person was murdered yesterday. If no one had any weapons or protective gear, there would have been less violence and passions would not have risen to the level that hey did. Most likely no one would have been killed.

No....it all goes to the first one to use physical violence....and that is on antifa fascists....the guy who ran people over is also to blame, and should get the death penalty, if it can be shown he did this with the intent to murder people.

"and that is on anti-fa fascists" (anti-fascist fascists......lol) Where is your evidence that they started the physical violence?

It's all over the news.
Maybe you should stop defending them like a sheeple and open your ******* eyes.

 

[Nosmo King]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

Killing someone with a car automatically means its an act of terror? People die in car accidents every day. Does that mean we have rampant terrorism in the US?

It is alleged, after branding a Nazi shield, he, drove into a group of people; if proven, it was not an accident.

I doubt very much it was an accident. That still doesnt tell us if it was terrorism or the act of a pissed of nut case.

Ah! The 'Dylan Roof' defense! Only a matter of time.

You see, after Dylan Roof shot up the Charleston church, his crime was not called terrorism either. He too was called a 'pissed off nutcase'.

White Nationalists will do rhetorical gymnastics to avoid the taint of being called terrorists. Thus proving once again how utterly cowardly they are.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Clubs? no
Protective gear does not provoke an attack

It's by definition, defensive.

 

[Peach]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

Killing someone with a car automatically means its an act of terror? People die in car accidents every day. Does that mean we have rampant terrorism in the US?

It is alleged, after branding a Nazi shield, he, drove into a group of people; if proven, it was not an accident.

if proven, it was not an accident.

" if proven"

Until then, innocent until proven guilty.

As I wrote, he may lack capacity, etc.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The "blame" for this clusterfuck goes to anyone who participated in physical violence. Doesn't matter, to me, at least, who started what.. Each and every person there had a choice to respond with violence or not...except the victims...that choice was robbed from them.

I also blame the media for it never ending race baiting by calling them white supremists, nazis, separatists, KKK, etc etc, perpetually and the politicians who shut it down before it began. Notice the pols and media NEVER do this when blacks are rioting looting and burning a city.

That's who they were, dope.
They were very clear about that. HITF did you miss that?

 

[Godboy]

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

Killing someone with a car automatically means its an act of terror? People die in car accidents every day. Does that mean we have rampant terrorism in the US?

It is alleged, after branding a Nazi shield, he, drove into a group of people; if proven, it was not an accident.

I doubt very much it was an accident. That still doesnt tell us if it was terrorism or the act of a pissed of nut case.

Ah! The 'Dylan Roof' defense! Only a matter of time.

You see, after Dylan Roof shot up the Charleston church, his crime was not called terrorism either. He too was called a 'pissed off nutcase'.

White Nationalists will do rhetorical gymnastics to avoid the taint of being called terrorists. Thus proving once again how utterly cowardly they are.

Lets assume that this 20 year old drove into the crowd specifically to make a political statement; a deliberate act of terrorism. What exactly should we do with that information? If he isnt connected to an organization that is committing terrorism, its not like we can do anything about it. Theres no group we can go after to prevent further terrorism. If its just a lone guy, what the hell are we supposed to do about it, and how does condemning him as a terrorist stop future nut cases from doing it?

Id be pleased as punch if it turns out that this was an organized attack. I would LOVE to see a Neo Nazi group taken down, but i highly doubt this was organized terrorism. Im not even sure this was LONE terrorism.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

An act of violence against civilians in order to support a political agenda.

Is that the reason he hit those people? To further a political agenda?...or did he get hit in the head with a stick, thereby becoming enraged and making a spur of the moment decision to drive his car into the crowd?

It seems to me that we dont yet have the information required to make such a determination. Wouldnt you agree?

If you can demonstrate self defense in this case, take the bar exam in your state and get rich.

Who said anything about self defense? Where is your proof that he hit those people to further a political agenda? How do you know he wasnt just pissed off and drunk and made a terrible decision in the heat of the moment?

excuse-making

You are ******* dumb. You dont know a thing about what happened, yet youre here proclaiming that its an act of terrorism. Are you like 12 or something? What happened to your ability to use logic and critical thinking? This is common sense stuff. WTF?

Critical thinking?

Like he wasn't Muslim so, duh it couldn't be terrorism?

Dope.

 

[Godboy]

Like he wasn't Muslim so, duh it couldn't be terrorism?

You think only muslims commit terrorism? Jeez, youre kind of stupid.

 

[PredFan]

So? That isn't a reason to strip someone of their right. .

Try to exercise your 2nd amendment right with 100 feet of the president. I dare you.

Try to get within 100 feet of the President, dumbass.